[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 110 (Wednesday, August 10, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
                  RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4606, the Labor-HHS 
Appropriations Act, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4606) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education, and related agencies, for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1995, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       (1) Helms amendment No. 2466 (to committee amendment on 
     page 63, beginning on line 5), to express the sense of the 
     Senate regarding the congressional timetable for considering 
     health care reform.
       (2) Graham amendment No. 2478, to provide funds to carry 
     out the Emergency Immigrant Education Act of 1984 or its 
     successor authority.


                           Amendment No. 2478

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Florida [Mr. Graham] is recognized to speak for up to 15 minutes on 
amendment No. 2478.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the amendment which has been filed by 
myself and others would provide for full funding of the Emergency 
Immigrant Education Act. This act was recently the subject of an 
amendment during our consideration of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, at which time the authorization level for this program 
was set at $150 million. The purpose of this amendment is to provide 
appropriations to match that authorization.
  Mr. President, immigrant education is, unfortunately, yet another 
example of the failed Federal-State partnership. In the case of Plyler 
versus Doe, the U.S. Supreme Court held that States have a legal 
responsibility to educate all children, regardless of immigration 
status. That is, the States have the legal responsibility to provide a 
free public education for children who are the children of citizens, 
permanent residents, and all other forms of legal residents as well as 
undocumented aliens.
  Since that ruling more than a decade ago, the Federal Government has 
not provided adequate funds to reimburse States for these mandated 
services, particularly to the children of undocumented aliens. 
Individual States, of course, have no capacity, either under law or 
with their resources, to control access of illegal entrants to this 
Nation. Under the U.S. Constitution, that responsibility has been 
vested in the Federal Government.
  Unfortunately, when the Federal Government does not adequately 
address its responsibility for illegal immigration, State and local 
governments are left with the burden of that failure.
  The Emergency Immigrant Education Act program is the only Federal 
education program dedicated exclusively to assisting communities 
impacted by such immigration. The EIEA reimburses local school 
districts for the additional costs of educating immigrant children whom 
States are constitutionally bound to serve. Unfortunately, the program 
has been grossly underfunded since its inception in 1984, and the trend 
line has been down. Today, there are almost 810,000 immigrant children 
in the United States who qualify for funding under the EIEA. In 1984, 
the appropriation level for EIEA equaled $86 per pupil. The current 
appropriation for fiscal year 1994 of $39 million provides only $48 per 
pupil.
  So in 10 years, with increasing education costs, we have gone from a 
paltry $86 per pupil to today's $48 per pupil. Because Federal funding 
has not kept pace with increased immigration, thousands of school 
districts must devote more of their own scarce resources to educating 
immigrant children. Meanwhile, overcrowded classrooms have caused an 
explosion in construction costs, and the quality of education for both 
immigrant and American-born children, children of American citizens, is 
in jeopardy.
  If I could use some examples, Mr. President, from my own State. In 
April 1994, Florida Gov. Lawton Chiles and the Dade County School 
Board, a school board that serves the metropolitan Miami area, sued the 
Federal Government for the unreimbursed cost of serving the State's 
immigrant children, primarily for the 345,000 who are living there 
illegally, that is, the total number of immigrant children.
  Education is the third largest of the costs which the State and local 
government are carrying as a result of that immigrant population. In 
1993 alone, the Florida Department of Education and local school 
districts spent an estimated $517 million to provide education to 
immigrants. However, Florida received only $1.5 million under the 
Emergency Immigrant Education Act.
  Compare those figures. The State and local school district spent $517 
million to educate immigrant children, the Federal Government provided 
$1.5 million.
  In Dade County, for each foreign-born student, the district incurs 
additional costs of approximately $1,152 from local funds which are not 
reimbursed from either Federal or State funds.
  Mr. President, if I could personalize this, my daughter, Suzanne, 
taught for several years in the Dade County school system. In her last 
year of teaching in the Dade County school system, she taught in a 
kindergarten in a public school that served a community with large 
numbers of immigrant children, children who spoke a diversity of 
languages, with great educational needs, great differences in terms of 
their family circumstances. Her classroom, Mr. President, had 38 
students--38 students--with only a part-time aide to assist her with 5-
year-old kindergarten students. My daughter has subsequently married, 
has moved to northern Virginia and taught last year at a public school 
in northern Virginia. She had fewer students in her north Virginia 
school system, only 24 or 25, with much less diversity in terms of the 
background of the students.
  One of the consequences of this is that we are causing very 
distinctly unequal education to be made available not only to immigrant 
children but also to children of native-born American parents as a 
result of this disparity in terms of where immigrant children are being 
educated, a constitutional requirement that they be educated at State 
and local expense and the failure of the Federal Government to provide 
adequate supplemental resources.
  More than 75,000 students, almost 25 percent of the student body in 
Dade County, are foreign born, thus costing the district over $86 
million in unreimbursed costs. In addition, based on the net increase 
of 23,661 foreign-born students since 1980, it would cost Dade County a 
total of $285 million to build and renovate schools to accommodate 
these new students, the additional cost of such construction being an 
average of $12,000 per student.
  A 1993 report entitled ``Immigration Impact on Broward County 
Schools'' stated that while,

       *** the intent of the Federal law is that students should 
     be funded at $500 per student, this never happens.
       Those levels have never risen above 2 percent of our total 
     cost any year since 1989. For the past 3 years, we have 
     received a minuscule portion of that money.

  For the 1992-93 school year, Broward County received only $17.25 per 
student for its 8,240 students, resulting in $3.9 million in 
unreimbursed costs.
  During consideration of Improving America's Schools Act, we increased 
the authorization level for the Emergency Immigrant Education Act to 
$150 million. This was an important step. However, it will be a hollow 
victory unless we provide full funding for this critical program.
  The bill we are considering today provides $50 million. This is an 
increase of $11 million from the 1994 level. But it still equals only 
$62 per eligible student, far less than the over $1,000 per student 
which local and State funds are required to be spent in terms of 
incremental costs.
  The amendment that Senator Hutchison and I are offering would 
transfer $100 million from salary expenses and program management to 
the Emergency Immigrant Education Act. This has been endorsed by the 
National School Boards Association, the National Conference of Mayors, 
and the National Council of State Legislatures.
  I recognize that many administrative accounts in this bill have 
already been frozen or reduced. However, our States are facing an 
emergency situation, one which requires us to make tough choices about 
how we will spend our Federal funds. For the past 10 years, the Federal 
Government has avoided these tough choices because it has had little 
incentive to provide adequate assistance to the States for immigrant 
education services. Whether or not we provide adequate funds to 
reimburse States for the costs of educating immigrant students, States 
will continue to provide these services and will continue to have to 
pay the tab and will continue to have to dilute the quality of 
education to all of the children in their school districts.
  The Senator from Iowa has argued that the EIEA Program primarily 
benefits only five States. That is because there are currently five 
States facing emergency immigration situations. We have had other 
examples of emergencies: in my State with the hurricanes, in the State 
of the Senator from Iowa with floods, and the State of the Senator from 
California with earthquakes and otherwise.
  This Congress has not refused to recognize an emergency just because 
it was highly concentrated in its impact. I believe, Mr. President, 
that similarly we should answer the question: Should we abandon those 
communities of America which are heavily impacted by immigration? The 
answer is clearly no. But in this situation, when our States are 
overwhelmed by the impact of Federal immigration policy, a policy which 
has failed to protect our borders, failed to enforce our immigration 
laws, and has allowed hundreds of thousands of undocumented aliens into 
our country, and our States have repeatedly asked the Federal 
Government for assistance to deal with this problem, we have the 
responsibility to provide that assistance.
  The Senator from Iowa has also argued that the number of immigrant 
students has decreased over the past year. However, that has not 
changed the fact that the EIEA Program has never been adequately 
funded, and currently reimburses States for only a minuscule percentage 
of their cost of educating immigrant children.
  The Federal Government has the complete constitutional responsibility 
for our Nation's immigration policies as enumerated in article I, 
section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The power and singular 
responsibility was conferred from the States to the Federal Government 
to ``establish a uniform rule of naturalization.'' When there is an 
egregious failure of the Federal Government to carry out their 
responsibility, the community in which this failure is projected should 
not have to pay the cost.
  Until the Federal Government is required to meet its responsibility 
for its dereliction in its duty to protect the borders and enforce 
immigration, then the Federal Government has no basis upon which to 
refuse to provide assistance to those States which have been heavily 
impacted. States and localities do not have the luxury of avoiding this 
responsibility.
  I urge my colleagues to join with the cosponsors of this amendment in 
support of the proposition that the Federal Government should meet its 
obligations and should assure that the goal of providing equal 
educational opportunities for all children in all communities of 
America is realized.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The pending question is amendment No. 
2466, offered by the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], to the 
committee amendment on page 63, line 5 of the bill.
  The debate on the amendment is limited to 30 minutes, with 10 minutes 
under the control of the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms]; the 
Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin]; and the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Specter].
  Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Specter].


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the bill was originally set for 9:30. It 
is now 9:33. The proponent of the amendment has not yet arrived on the 
floor. I just learned at about 9:10 this morning that the Senator from 
Florida had 15 additional minutes on his amendment. I have been advised 
by staff of the chairman, Senator Harkin, that they were only advised 
this morning, as well. So it may be that we will need some additional 
time to respond to the amendment by the Senator from Florida.
  Mr. President, in the absence of the pending amendment's sponsor, I 
ask unanimous consent to take 5 minutes in replying to the Senator from 
Florida, so that we can save that time after the other Members arrive.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator not wish that that time 
come out of the time allotted to the Senator from Pennsylvania under 
the order?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, that is correct. The time that this 
Senator has, 10 minutes, relates to the Helms amendment. I had not 
anticipated using any time on the amendment of the Senator from 
Florida.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Perhaps I might propound a unanimous consent-request, if 
it is satisfactory to the chairman, for 10 additional minutes to reply 
to the Senator from Florida, 5 minutes being used by this Senator, and 
5 minutes being used by the chairman.
  Mr. President, after consulting with the chairman of the 
subcommittee, our request for unanimous consent is that we be allotted 
10 extra minutes, 5 minutes which I will take and 5 minutes which 
Senator Harkin will take, and then we will begin the Helms amendment at 
the conclusion of that 10 minutes. Thirty minutes will start to run at 
the conclusion of the 10 minutes which I have just requested.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? The Chair hears no 
objection. The request is granted.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought the 5 minutes to reply 
briefly to the arguments made by the Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham], 
on his amendment for a transfer of $100 million additionally to the 
program for immigrant education. I am very sympathetic to what Senator 
Graham has requested. It is my wish that we fund an additional $100 
million. However, the funds which the amendment proposes would be taken 
from salaries and expenses of the Departments of Labor, Health and 
Human Services, and Education. This would have a very, very severe 
impact.
  When this bill was crafted, we were slightly under $70 billion, which 
seems like a great deal of money at first blush, but really is not when 
we have to accommodate all of the needs of education, Health and Human 
Services, and Labor at the Federal level. There has already been an 
increase this year of some $11 million for immigrant education, which 
is an increase of some 28 percent, which is an enormous increase for 
this program compared to what has happened to other programs within 
this bill.
  If the funds were taken, illustratively, from the Department of 
Labor, some $33 million and a third of a million dollars, it would 
block OSHA's initiative to target inspections of the worse offenders of 
the health and safety laws. It would leave the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics unable to revise the Consumer Price Index, which is 
enormously important for measuring inflation in America. It would 
reduce the number of mine inspections, and it would reduce the 
Department's ability to apprehend and prosecute violators.
  On the education bill, there would be a very significant impact, 
eliminating the student aid guide and student aid enforcement center, 
which is instrumental in helping over 7 million college students to 
obtain Federal student aid dollars. It would require about 30 days' 
furlough for the Department's 5,000 employees.
  And on Health and Human Services, the reduction would impact on the 
intermural research program and clinical center at the National 
Institutes of Health, and on the epidemiological and disease 
surveillance staff capacity of the Centers for Disease Control. There 
would have to be significant reduction in the Social Security 
Administration's disability determination programs.
  We have very carefully considered these expenses, Senator Harkin and 
I, as chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, as has the full 
committee, which the Presiding Officer chairs, and we have done the 
best we can.
  In view of the limited time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that a letter of August 8 to Senator Harkin from Acting Director of 
OMB, Alice Rivlin, be printed in the Record, as well as the impact 
statements from the three Departments, which more fully set forth the 
very significant cuts which will have to be imposed if this amendment 
were to be adopted.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                   Washington, DC, August 8, 1994.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, Education, and Related 
         Agencies Appropriations, Committee on Appropriations, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The purpose of this letter is to express 
     the Administration's opposition to the ``Hutchison-Graham'' 
     amendment to H.R. 4606, the Labor, Health and Human Services, 
     Education, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, FY 1995. 
     This amendment would substantially cut the agencies' 
     administrative budgets in order to increase funding for the 
     Immigrant Education Program.
       The Administration is sympathetic to the Senators' desire 
     to support State efforts to educate immigrants. However, this 
     amendment would have a devastating impact on administration 
     of programs in each agency. Examples include significantly 
     delaying student financial aid grants and loans, preventing 
     the Department of Labor from implementing its initiative to 
     improve the targeting of OSHA inspections, reducing Health 
     and Human Services' capacity to administer priority AIDS 
     grants and childhood immunizations and to ensure the accuracy 
     of Medicare and other entitlement payments, and delaying the 
     Social Security Administration's ability to reduce the 
     disability claims backlog.
       The Administration strongly objects to the Hutchison-Graham 
     amendment, and I urge the Senate to reject it.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Alice M. Rivlin,
                                                  Acting Director.
                                  ____


   Impact of the Salaries and Expenses Cut on the Department of Labor

       The amendment to cut approximately $34 million from the 
     Department of Labor's Salaries and Expenses (S&E) account 
     would have a devastating impact. This is primarily a cut in 
     DOL enforcement programs--not cuts in administrative 
     overhead.
       Adoption of this amendment would gut the Department's 
     worker safety enforcement initiative aimed at improving the 
     lives and workplaces of American workers. DOL enforcement 
     activities have declined by 19 percent in the last 14 years, 
     even as the Department's responsibilities have increased with 
     the passage of new legislation, such as the Family Medical 
     Leave Act, and with the growth of the workforce. The bill 
     before the Senate has already decreased DOL S&E funding by 
     $80 million, or 5%, below the Administration's request.
       The action will have the following impacts:
       It will block OSHA's long overdue initiative to target 
     inspections on the worst violators of our health and safety 
     laws. It will cut the number of inspections OSHA can 
     undertake and increase the likelihood of another disaster 
     like the Hamlet, N.C., chicken plant fire.
       It will render the Bureau of Labor Statistics unable to 
     undertake the proposed revision of the Consumer Price Index 
     (CPI). The revision of the CPI is vitally needed. It is 
     estimated that a 1% error in the CPI costs the American 
     people $600 million annually. It is truly pennywise and pound 
     foolish not to make this small investment.
       It will reduce the number of mine inspections, which will 
     put miners at greater risk and could result in more 
     accidents, injuries and deaths.
       It will reduce the Department's ability to catch and 
     prosecute those who embezzle from or defraud pension plans 
     and health benefit plans, leaving retirees and workers less 
     protected.
                                  ____


                        Department of Education


                    salaries and expenses amendment

       The Senate Committee bill has already reduced S&E by $19 
     million, or 5 percent below the President's request--and by 
     $13 million, or almost 4 percent, below the House approved 
     level.
       A further reduction of $33 million would:
       Eliminate the Student Aid Guide and Student Aid Information 
     Center that help over 7 million college students obtain 
     Federal student aid dollars.
       Significantly delay the award of grants, loans, and work-
     study opportunities to these 7 million students.
       Eliminate management improvements to prevent fraud and 
     abuse in all Federal student aid programs--something for 
     which this Body has severely criticized the Department.
       Significantly delay the award of Federal dollars to States, 
     local school districts and institutions under all the 
     Department's 240 programs.
       Eliminate providing assistance and information on Federal 
     programs and successful education practices to States, school 
     districts, teachers, and parents--at a time when the Nation 
     needs to make dramatic reforms in education and to become 
     more competitive.
       Require about 30 furlough days for the Department's 5,000 
     employees.
                                  ____


              Effect of Administrative Cost Reduction--HHS

       A $33 million reduction in Salaries and Expenses for DHHS 
     would impact on all aspects of the Department's operations 
     including:
       Payment of Medicare claims through the Medicare 
     contractors.
       The entire intermural research program and clinical center 
     at the National Institutes of Health.
       Epidemiological and disease surveillance staff capacity at 
     the Centers for Disease Control.
       Capacity to manage and implement expansion of Head Start 
     and reform of the welfare system.
       Social Security Administration's disability determinations 
     operations.
       Such an amendment ($33 million) is equivalent to nearly \1/
     4\ of the funds needed to pay the statutory Federal pay raise 
     during FY 1995.
       The Senate level, by either ``freezing'' administrative 
     cost or cutting below FY 1994 levels, will force agencies to 
     absorb the mandated pay raise in other budgeted items. An 
     additional $33 million reduction will exacerbate this 
     situation.
       Removal of $33 million could jeopardize the Department's 
     ability to meet its streamlining objectives through the use 
     of buy-outs. Buy-outs cost $25,000 plus an average of $2,000-
     3,000 in lump-sum payments for annual leave.
       Actions already taken:
       Staff reductions--In 1994, 900 FTE will be eliminated and 
     an additional 425 in 1995.
       Procurement reduction--The procurement budget amendment 
     reduced all procurement funding by $37 million. This will 
     require agencies to purchase less services (consultants, data 
     processing, medicare insurance claims processing) and 
     equipment.
       Rent reduction--The rent payment budget amendment reduced 
     funds available for space rental by $8 million, in order to 
     downsize the current office space usage by HHS.
       Administrative offsets for IHS Budget Amendment--Offsets of 
     $27 million were taken against salaries and expenses to 
     finance an April Indian Health Service budget amendment. This 
     reduction represented an approximately 1.5 percent across-
     the-board cut.

  Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] is 
recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to join my colleague, Senator 
Specter, in opposing the Graham amendment.
  I had spoken about it the other day. I think Senators ought to be 
fully aware of what this amendment does. It may be couched in terms 
that you are cutting salaries of bureaucrats in some of these 
Departments by $100 million, and then we can use this for immigrant 
education.
  First of all, a close reading of the amendment will show it is not 
just salaries. If you read the amendment, it says salaries, expenses, 
and program management, not just in the broad context, but in each 
program, project, or activity. That means that every entity in the 
Departments of Labor, Health, and Education, will all have to take a 
proportional share of the cut.
  What that means is that it is not just some sort of a mushy taking 
out of some salary someplace. It means that the actual running of the 
offices, the management of the offices, the phone calls, the equipment, 
and everything else, is affected by this. So what it means is that the 
reduction could result in the closing of Social Security offices and 
delays in processing Social Security checks.

  Mr. President, every Senator has on his or her desk a ``Dear 
Colleague,'' signed by a bipartisan group of Senators, including the 
occupant of the chair, our President pro tempore, Senator Byrd; Senator 
Hatfield; myself; Senator Specter; Senator Inouye; Senator Stevens; 
Senator Cochran; Senator Pell; Senator Kassebaum; and Senator Dodd. 
This ``Dear Colleague'' lays it out very clearly as to the impact of 
the Graham amendment.
  The backlog in Social Security disability claims is expected to be 
over a million in fiscal 1995 and will grow even larger because we will 
not be able to process Social Security disability claims. The reduction 
would cut funding appropriated for the process of Medicare claims, 
making millions of senior citizens wait longer for reimbursement. Audit 
activities to control fraud and abuse would also suffer and result in 
the loss of more than $100 million in Social Security and Medicare 
funds. Efforts to control SSI payments to drug addicts, alcoholics, and 
illegal aliens would be affected. The $100 million reduction will cut 
funding and delay the implementation of programs to immunize the 
Nation's children.
  This amendment will cut funding for Public Health Service programs 
for AIDS, breast and prostate cancer, and necessary funds to respond to 
outbreaks of diseases such as tuberculosis. The reduction would delay 
services to 7 million college students who apply for Pell grants and 
other campus-based aids.
  So, Mr. President, this amendment is one that would just be 
devastating. I must also add that in the past couple of years we have 
increased funding for immigrant education by almost 70 percent in the 
last 2 years, at the same time that the number of school districts 
reporting immigrant students has actually declined by 2 percent.
  So I ask Senators to resist this amendment. It sounds good. It would 
have a devastating impact on other programs, plus the fact that we have 
increased immigrant education, increased it substantially, even while 
the reports are that the number of immigrant students is declining.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
favor of the Graham amendment for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). Is there objection?
  Without objection, the Senator is recognized for not to exceed 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I thank Senator Harkin and Senator Specter for allowing me to speak 
in favor of the Graham amendment.
  I do understand what the Senators are facing trying to get this bill 
through, and I know there have been some cuts, and I realize that it is 
very difficult to take money on the floor for another purpose. But the 
border States have been paying for a Federal mandate--this time it is a 
Supreme Court mandate--year after year after year. We are educating 
illegal immigrants in our school systems, and it is a very great burden 
that really should not be borne by the States. It is a Federal issue.
  There are 810,000 illegal immigrant children in the school systems in 
America, and 70,000 of those are in my State. The school districts are 
not rich. These are local school districts. They get matching funds 
from the State, but it is mostly local. These are generally poor school 
districts that have a hard time providing the education at the level 
that we would like for them to be anyway.
  But to have the burden of illegal immigrants coming into our 
education system is really more than those local school districts are 
able to bear. The States do help, but it is still not a fair issue for 
the States to have to pick up the cost. There are probably 10 States in 
this country that are picking up the cost for the other 40. And that is 
just not right.
  So what we are asking for today is equity. We are asking for the help 
from the Federal Government because we are not controlling our borders 
as we should be. The Federal Government is responsible for keeping 
illegal immigrants out of our country, as we welcome legal immigrants 
and as we try to serve the citizens and taxpayers of our country. It is 
very important that we recognize that this is a Federal issue, that the 
States and the local governments and the borders have been burying this 
infrastructure problem year upon year upon year.
  I ask that the Senate pass this amendment. It is $100 million that 
will be taken from the administrative costs of three agencies. That is 
just a belt-tightening. Most businesses and most homes in this country 
have done belt-tightening. I think we ought to be doing it throughout 
the Federal Government anyway. In fact, I have introduced a separate 
bill that would provide a $50 billion cut, $10 billion a year, most of 
which is administrative costs of Government across the board.
  I think everybody can belt-tighten 5 or 10 percent, as our businesses 
and our families have in this country. I think this would be a good 
exercise. Let us put it where we really need it, and that is to help 
the States and local school districts that are bearing this Federal 
burden to educate illegal immigrant children under a Federal mandate by 
the Supreme Court that we must do it.
  I thank the Chair and I thank the managers of the bill.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The pending question is amendment No. 2466 offered by the Senator 
from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], to the committee amendment on page 63, 
line 5 of the bill.
  Debate on the amendment is limited to 30 minutes, with 10 minutes 
each under the control of the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], 
and the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter].
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.


                         privilege of the floor

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John McCann, 
an intern on my staff who helped me prepare the chart on the Mitchell 
health care bill, be admitted to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I 
ask unanimous consent that the time be divided equally among the 
Senator from North Carolina, the Senator from Iowa, and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, may I inquire what is the status of the 
unanimous consent regarding the order in which amendments will be voted 
on this morning? I understand that there is some alteration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will tell the Senator the first vote 
will be on his amendment No. 2466 to the committee amendment, followed 
by the committee amendment, and then followed by amendment of the 
Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham].
  Mr. HELMS. I have been informed that a unanimous consent is in the 
process of--I think I will yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, will the Senator from North Carolina 
yield to me?
  Mr. HELMS. I yield.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am advised by the majority staff that 
this amendment is cleared and the amendment is acceptable to this 
Senator for unanimous consent to vote on or in relation to the Helms 
amendment No. 2488 occur immediately following the disposition of the 
Helms amendment No. 2466 with the remaining votes occurring as 
previously scheduled.
  I believe that that would call for the time sequence of the 30 
minutes to begin now on the Helms amendment No. 2488.
  Mr. HELMS. Which of my amendments is amendment No. 2488?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will withhold a moment.
  Mr. HELMS. I certainly will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. To identify the amendment the Senator is 
requesting it is amendment No. 2488 on the Department of Defense 
appropriations bill dealing with health care reform.
  Mr. HELMS. That answers my question then, I am sure. In other words, 
amendment No. 2488 is the modification of the first health reform 
amendment, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, will my colleague yield one more moment?
  Mr. HELMS. I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, since this amendment has been 
substituted, I ask unanimous consent that the 30 minutes previously 
allotted to the prior amendment be allotted to this amendment with 10 
minutes going to the Senator from North Carolina, 10 minutes to the 
Senator from Iowa, and 10 minutes to this Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, let me save the Senate a bit of time. The 
immediately ensuing rollcall vote on the first Helms amendment to 
Labor-HHS will be a waste of the Senate's time because I am going to 
move to table my own amendment and ask for the yeas and nays on the 
motion to table unless the Senate proceeds and grants my unanimous 
consent to vitiate the yeas and nays on that first amendment. I ask 
unanimous consent in that regard. There is no point in having a 
rollcall vote on it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair as the Senator from Colorado will 
object, in the absence of the majority leader being here.
  Mr. HELMS. All right.
  I understand what is going on, I say to the distinguished Senator 
occupying the Chair.
  So, before I do move to table my amendment, then, I think I should 
make clear that following the vote on the motion to table my original 
amendment, another vote will immediately follow, on virtually the same 
amendment, this one having been offered to the Defense bill. That is 
what the Chair just confirmed to me. Is that not correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  So the two amendments, the one that I shall move to table and the one 
on the Defense appropriations bill, are identical except for my 
addition of the following language to the original sense-of-the-Senate 
declaration. It is a portion that is in both amendments that I read 
now.

       It is the sense of the Senate that major health care reform 
     is too important to enact in a rushed fashion and Congress 
     should take whatever time is necessary to do it right by 
     deferring action until next year to give Congress and the 
     American people ample time to obtain, read and consider all 
     alternatives and make wise choices.

  That is where the first amendment ends. The second amendment, which 
is the one to the Defense appropriations bill merely adds the 
following:

       Unless the Senate has had the full opportunity to debate 
     and amend the proposal after Congressional Budget Office 
     estimates have been made available.

  Now, as I say, this next vote is totally unnecessary. But let me 
explain why we are forced to proceed with such an unnecessary vote. 
Yesterday, Senator Stevens on my behalf suggested that since I intended 
to modify my original amendment, the original amendment be withdrawn 
inasmuch as the yeas and nays had been obtained on the original 
amendment. When the unanimous consent to have my first amendment was 
proposed, an objection was heard on the Democratic side, as it was just 
moments ago.
  I do not know what kind of games they are trying to play. That suits 
me fine. I can play them, too. Normally, in a situation like this 
courtesy prevails in the Senate, but in this case courtesy did not and 
does not prevail.
  Now, let me point out that every publication, every observer that I 
know of has said wait to reform our health care system until January; 
do not do this thing in a rushed order. A recent NBC-Wall Street 
Journal poll found that 61 percent of those polled said to wait on 
health care reform. Only 34 percent said pass the bill now.
  Here is the telephone number if you want to call Senators at the last 
minute and say, lay this thing aside until January and do not be 
foolish and pass something that is going to be bad for the American 
people. The Senate telephone switchboard number is 1-202-224-3121. You 
might want to call right now and get hold of your Senators.
  Other polls also say that we should wait. The Hart-Teeter poll for 
the Wall Street Journal and NBC was conducted on April 30. It said 
``pass the bill this year, 34 percent''; ``continue to debate the issue 
and act next year, 58 percent.''
  So, by a wide margin, Americans are of the opinion that it is a 
mistake for the Senate to rush through health care reform this year. It 
has become strictly a political issue. It is not a health issue 
anymore. It is a political issue. And we ought not to operate in that 
atmosphere in passing a piece of legislation this important.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am advised that technically the 
unanimous-consent agreement was not entered. So I would renew the 
unanimous-consent request that the vote on or in relation to the Helms 
amendment No. 2480 occur immediately after the disposition of the Helms 
amendment No. 2466, with the remaining votes occurring as previously 
scheduled; with 10 minutes being allotted to the Senator from North 
Carolina, as in the previous unanimous-consent request; 10 minutes to 
the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin; and 10 minutes to this Senator, 
as in the previous unanimous consent request; with the time used by 
Senator Helms having been deducted from his 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Does Senator Harkin 
have 10 minutes assigned?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct; the Senator has 10 
minutes.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in his behalf, I yield back the remainder 
of my time.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry.
  Under the unanimous-consent request, is it true that I now have 10 
minutes to speak on the Helms amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lieberman). The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I have asked for 10 minutes to speak on the amendment 
by the Senator from North Carolina, which had as its original purpose 
to delay the consideration of health care legislation until next year, 
and it has been modified, as I understand, to delay consideration until 
there is adequate time. We will be voting on the Helms amendments in 
due course.
  I had reserved these 10 minutes to speak on the subject because for 
many weeks I have said that I would not join any filibuster against 
health care legislation. However, over the last weekend I have 
reconsidered that position because of the complexities of the Mitchell 
bill and what may be a rush to judgment.
  My current thinking is that we should take up this bill and take the 
time to do it right and not on anyone's political timetable. The bill 
is a very complicated bill, as is evident from the fact that it has not 
yet been filed, as I understand it.
  This morning's Washington Post contains a report which questions 
whether the Mitchell bill can be scored and be presented to the Senate 
at this time. The report notes that ``Since Mitchell unveiled his plan 
last week, the legislation has been rewritten hundreds of times, 
sources said, because the original plan would have created a huge 
deficit.'' And there are many, many questions outstanding as to what 
the Mitchell plan would actually do.
  When the original Clinton health care plan was proposed, I asked my 
staff to make a list of all the agencies, boards, and commissions, 
because I was so surprised by the complexity of the plan. Instead, my 
staff made a chart of the new agencies, boards, and commissions in the 
Clinton plan, and the chart showed that the plan had some 105 new 
agencies, boards, and commissions in a bill that was 1,342 pages long.
  If the Chair will indulge me, I will go to the back of the Chamber to 
show the chart.
  Mr. President, this is the chart of the Clinton health care program, 
with the boxes in red signifying 105 new agencies, boards, and 
commissions and the boxes in green signifying the existing agencies 
which have new administrative responsibilities.
  Since my staff and I obtained the draft of the Mitchell proposal, 
with the work of John McCann, who is an intern in my office from the 
University of Pennsylvania's Fells Institute, working literally night 
and day, this chart has been prepared which shows at a glance the 
enormous bureaucracy of the Mitchell health bill. This was prepared 
from the preliminary draft of the Mitchell bill, and as yet we do not 
have the final version of the bill. The initial draft was 1,410 pages 
long and the red boxes here show 170 new boards, agencies, councils, 
commissions, programs, and functions, and 44 existing agencies with new 
and expanded functions.
  Mr. President, this chart shows the enormously complicated 
bureaucracy which would come into play with Senator Mitchell's bill. My 
suggestion has been consistently that what the Senate should do is not 
to scrap the current health care system but to build on it. Toward that 
end, I introduced, some 18 months ago, Senate bill 18, which would be 
directed at covering the 37 to 40 million Americans now not covered, 
provide for coverage for preexisting conditions, coverage for change of 
jobs and the reduction of spiraling health care costs. I intend to 
speak about that later today when my time will come to address the 
overall Mitchell proposal.
  I believe that the Congress has not faced a challenge as serious as 
the one now confronting it, perhaps, in the history of the Congress; 
certainly since Social Security was enacted in the 1930's. I believe 
that we have to take whatever time is necessary to do it right. I do 
not think we ought to be motivated by any political timetable, where it 
is said that it is necessary to get this bill out before the November 
elections so the President's purpose can be accomplished. I do not 
think there ought to be any Democratic timetable to help Democrats. I 
do not think there ought to be any Republican timetable on a filibuster 
for political purposes, either.
  During the course of the last week, as I have been in my home State, 
Pennsylvania, I have heard many, many questions raised about this plan. 
People approach me on the train traveling to and from Washington, DC, 
in the shopping malls, and again in restaurants.
  I believe I struck a chord, apparently, 2 days ago when, discussing 
this matter, I commented about what my Aunt Rose in Wichita, KS, had to 
say about the Clinton health care plan and what she has read about the 
Mitchell proposal. From time to time, I find more wisdom in talking to 
my Aunt Rose than I find in the committees and on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate.
  Aunt Rose had a very basic approach. Her approach was, ``I like the 
health care coverage I have now. I have Medicare and I pay $91 a month. 
What will happen to me under Senator Mitchell's bill?'' And I could not 
answer that question.
  And then she said, ``I'd like to see the poor people covered. I'd 
like to know what is going to happen there.'' She said, ``What is it 
going to cost if we have the Mitchell health care plan adopted?'' And I 
could not answer that question for her.
  I was talking to my wife over the weekend. Joan used to have a small 
business which was a bakery which made candy, walnut pies, and double 
chocolate mousse pies. She said, ``Arlen, what would these health care 
plans cost me if I were still running that small business?'' She said, 
``I certainly could not afford to pay several thousand dollars a year 
for each additional employee.''
  And I said, ``Joan, I do not know. I do not know the answer to that 
question.''
  We have just seen a report come out from the Entitlement Commission, 
again drawing the dangers of the cost of entitlements in America. And 
on the Senate floor no subject has been debated more in my 14 years 
here than the deficit, which is around $250 billion a year, and the 
national debt, which is $400 trillion. What these entitlements will 
cost is unanswered. Today's story in the Washington Post again 
reiterates that.
  So, Mr. President, it is my view that we ought to take up health care 
reform and we ought to seek answers to these questions. I do not think 
it is indispensable----
  Mr. BUMPERS. May I borrow your chart?
  Mr. SPECTER. You may borrow my charts, Mr. Bumpers.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I want to borrow the maker of the chart.
  Mr. SPECTER. You want to borrow the maker of the chart? I will be 
glad to make the maker of the chart available to Senator Bumpers as 
well.
  Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senate will come 
to order. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the concern which I have is that in this 
rush to pass health care reform we will not have a chance to receive 
input from the American people. Hearings would be useful, but I am not 
saying the hearings on the Mitchell bill are absolutely indispensable.
  But there is a quality that, when time passes and there are newspaper 
analyses, editorials, op-ed articles, and radio talk shows, the 
American people will discover what the bill is all about. We should 
have input from organizations representing senior citizens, consumers, 
doctors--if I may have 1 additional minute, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, that is what I think is necessary in 
order to have an evaluation of the program.
  When the Clinton health care proposal was introduced in October of 
last year, the initial response was terrific. But as the American 
people began to understand it, the favorable rating for the Clinton 
health care plan went way down.
  We have not yet even had the final version of the Mitchell health 
care plan. But I submit that when you take a look at this chart with 
the 170 new agencies, boards, commissions, programs, and functions, and 
44 new agencies existing with new responsibilities, that we ought to 
pause. We have to take our time on this vital subject to do it right if 
we are to do it at all.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina has 4 minutes 
58 seconds remaining.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, momentarily I shall move to table my own 
amendment, and I am going to urge all Senators to join me and vote to 
table. Before I do that, I ask unanimous consent that several things be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. First is a poll 
by the Times Mirror and the Harvard School of Public Health which asks:

       ``Will health care reform give you the freedom to choose a 
     doctor?'' Thirty-three percent said they would have as much 
     freedom. But 58 percent said they would have less freedom to 
     choose their doctor.

  Second, a poll conducted by the CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, in mid-
July asked:

       ``Do you think you have enough information to judge the 
     health care plans which have been proposed?'' Twenty-nine 
     percent said they have enough information. A resounding 70 
     percent said they need more information.

  Third, a Hart/Teeter poll from the Wall Street Journal/NBC asked:

       ``Should Congress pass the health bill this year?'' Thirty-
     four percent said yes. But 58 percent said continue to debate 
     the issue and act next year.

  I ask unanimous consent that these three polls be printed in the 
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HELMS. Now just a sample of commentaries. One is from this 
morning's Washington Post. It says the same thing I have said in my 
amendment--let us wait until next year. Written by Robert J. Samuelson, 
who has a similar piece in the latest issue of Newsweek, the article is 
headed, ``Health Care: Start Over Next Year. They don't know what they 
are doing up there.'' I would say that is an understatement. So I ask 
unanimous consent that this article be published in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. HELMS. One of the most sensible publishers in the country is the 
publisher of the Charlotte Observer in my own State, Rolfe Neill. This 
past Sunday, Rolfe devoted his op-ed piece to a Viewpoint headed, 
``What's The Rush? Don't hurry to provide lifetime, irrevocable 
benefits that we can't afford.''
  I ask unanimous consent that Rolfe Neill's column be printed in the 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 3.)
  Mr. HELMS. Let me make one more attempt to save the Senate 15 
minutes--it will be 25 minutes. There is no point in having two votes 
on this. It suits me fine, but I am going to ask unanimous consent, 
once more, that the yeas and nays be vitiated on my first amendment, 
the one to Labor/HHS, so that I can withdraw it. Then we can proceed to 
the vote on my second amendment, the one to the defense bill, which is 
almost identical.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the motion to vitiate 
the yeas and nays?
  Mr. INOUYE. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HELMS. Let the Record show this side is not trying to delay 
anything.

                               Exhibit 1

[From a Times Mirror-Harvard School of Public Health poll, June 23-26, 
                                 1994]


    will health care reform give you the freedom to choose a doctor?

       As much freedom: 33%.
       Less freedom: 58%.


Do you think you have enough information to judge the Health Care Plans 
                       which have been proposed?

       Have enough information: 29%.
       Need more information: 70%.
       No opinion: 1%.


                         congress should . . .

       Pass the Health Bill this year: 34%.
       Continue to debate the issue and act next year: 58%.

                               Exhibit 2

               [From the Washington Post, Aug. 10, 1994]

                   Health Care: Start Over Next Year

                        (By Robert J. Samuelson)

       They don't know what they're doing up there.
       Among other things, the Democratic health care plan 
     contains a large--and unjustified--multi-billion-dollar tax 
     on younger workers. You wonder whether most members of 
     Congress know this or even care. The whole health care debate 
     is now completely out of control. The desperate effort to 
     craft something that can be advertised as ``universal 
     coverage'' means that Congress literally no longer knows what 
     it's doing. Anything resembling the Democrats' bills, if 
     enacted, would produce massive unintended side effects.
       Apparently, most Americans grasp this. In a Newsweek poll 
     last week, respondents were asked whether Congress ought to 
     ``pass reform this year'' or ``start over next year.'' By a 
     two-to-one margin (65-31 percent), they said ``start over.'' 
     They sense that the versions of health reform crafted by 
     House and Senate leaders are hodgepodges of conflicting 
     provisions whose only purpose is to win passage. But what is 
     clear to ordinary Americans is denied in Washington. In the 
     capital, the fiction is that legislators know what they're 
     doing and are debating rational alternatives.
       ``I think you're going to see a very good, erudite back-
     and-forth,'' says House majority leader Richard Gephardt, 
     sponsor of the House bill. Well, it won't be ``erudite'' if 
     members of Congress don't understand the consequences of 
     their actions.
       Gephardt's plan, for instance, would create a new Medicare 
     Part C program for the unemployed, workers in small companies 
     and many existing Medicaid recipients. The Congressional 
     Budget Office estimates that the program might enroll 90 
     million people. But the projection could easily err by 
     millions in either direction. More important, Medicare Part C 
     emphasizes ``fee for service'' medicine (patients selecting 
     individual doctors), while the rest of the bill emphasizes 
     ``managed competition'' (reliance on health maintenance 
     organizations and similar plans).
       In a single stroke, the bill would separate the under-65 
     population into two groups, mainly based on income and size 
     of employer. Each group would be crudely steered toward a 
     different type of medicine. In practice, this division may 
     not be politically acceptable or economically workable. Many 
     Americans may find one type of medicine more appealing than 
     the other and resent being excluded. Or the artificial 
     segmenting of the medical market may raise costs for both 
     ``managed competition'' and ``fee for service.'' Gephardt 
     doesn't know; no one does.
       Now, consider the tax on young workers. It arises from 
     ``community rating.'' As people age, their health costs and 
     insurance premiums rise. But ``community rating'' requires 
     that everyone pay the same rate. This provision is included 
     in the House bill and, in a modified version, in the Senate 
     bill. The effect would be to raise insurance for younger 
     workers (say those below 45); the amounts are hard to 
     estimate, but a good guess is at least $300 to $500 a 
     worker. If employers have to pay higher insurance, they 
     will pay lower salaries. The invisible tax on young 
     workers might total $15 billion to $25 billion annually.
       Is this fair? No. If enacted, it would compound the 
     existing bias against the young. Already, one-third of the 
     federal budget goes to the elderly; the young are taxed to 
     support the old. How much farther is this to go? Or is it a 
     cynical reaction to voting patterns (the young vote less than 
     the middle-aged or old)?
       Questions like these swirl around both Gephardt's plan and 
     Senate majority leader George Mitchell's. It is hard even to 
     describe Mitchell's plan. He says it's voluntary and lacks a 
     ``mandate.'' Wrong. It's true that it doesn't mandate 
     companies to buy insurance for workers. But it does mandate a 
     standard benefit package for firms--the vast majority--that 
     offer insurance. Because the mandated benefits are, above 
     average, this would probably raise health spending. Companies 
     below the new standard would increase benefits; those above 
     would have trouble lowering them.
       Next, Mitchell hopes to achieve 95 percent insurance 
     coverage by offering subsidies for low-income workers to buy 
     it. But there's a ``fail-safe'' mechanism to limit subsidies 
     if the budget costs exceed projected costs. However, if 95 
     percent coverage doesn't occur by 2000, Congress could 
     require employers to pay 50 percent of their workers' 
     insurance. But this would apply only to firms with more than 
     25 workers. Got it? Neither Mitchell nor anyone else knows 
     whether this would reach 95 percent coverage.
       These plans are confusing because the health debate evaded 
     the basic tension between expanding health services 
     (``universal coverage'' etc.) and controlling health 
     spending. It's hard to do both at the same time. The plans' 
     complexities--as with the original Clinton plan's--aim to 
     disguise this conflict. Republicans haven't been especially 
     constructive in this debate because they haven't faced up to 
     it either. But they are now correct that a bad bill would be 
     worse than none.
       Chaos is now the most important (and largely unreported) 
     reality about the health care debate. Dozens of provisions in 
     these bills would have huge unappreciated consequences. John 
     Sheils of Lewin-VHI, a health consulting firm, says premiums 
     for small businesses in the Mitchell bill could be 25 percent 
     higher than for big companies. The CBO agrees a gap exists 
     but puts it lower. Who's right? Do most members of Congress 
     understand the gap? Probably not. Still, the pretense in 
     Washington is that Congress is making conscious choices.
       The pretense is sustained because in Washington politics is 
     sport, especially at the climax of a legislative battle. All 
     attention fixes on who wins and loses--and the deals that 
     enliven the game. Rhetorical blasts are taken for reality; 
     political reporters know little of how legislation would work 
     and care less. This often leads to bad laws, and in health 
     care, the potential for blunders is huge because Congress is 
     tinkering with one-seventh of the economy and most aspects of 
     medicine.
       In May, Robert Reischauer, head of the CBO, warned that 
     trying to find a compromise by combining provisions from 
     different bills might make the health system worse. He 
     compared it to building an auto engine with incompatible 
     parts: ``You can't say I want a piston from Ford, a fuel pump 
     from Toyota . . . and expect the engine to run.'' Well, 
     that's precisely what's happened. The contraption is no 
     longer even a car made with incompatible parts. It's now part 
     car, part tractor and part rollerblades. It's a clunker. Most 
     Americans seem to understand this. Will Congress?

                               Exhibit 3

              [From the Charlotte Observer, Aug. 7, 1994]

                            What's the Rush?

                            (By Rolfe Neill)

       Don't hurry to provide lifetime, irrevocable health-care 
     benefits that we can't afford.
       Amid the insanity of congressional health-care debate comes 
     an idea so compelling you yearn for its acceptance but know 
     better. Americans for Tax Reform is circulating a 30-word 
     covenant and asking each member of Congress to sign. It says:


                      Legislative Priority Pledge

       I pledge to the taxpayers of my state that I will not vote 
     to enact any health-care reform plan that I have not first 
     personally read in its entirety.
       The Wall Street Journal editorial page, boosting ATR's 
     efforts, reports Republicans are signing but no Democrats. 
     Hillary Clinton's original plan was some 1,300 pages of rules 
     and definitions. You believe this will not increase health-
     care costs? When Medicare began in 1965, estimated annual 
     expense for the hospital trust fund by 1990 was $10.1 
     billion. The reality: $68 billion. Name a single government 
     scheme that costs less than predicted. I don't trust my 
     government to design a national health system.
       Two health issues are entangled, fueling a volatile 
     discussion. One is to retard or reduce expense for the 85% of 
     us insured; the other is to provide universal health 
     coverage, taking in the 15% of people without insurance. The 
     Clintons say the debate is between the caring and the 
     uncaring. More accurately, it's between the questioning and 
     the unquestioning.
       The 15% is a fungible figure which proponents don't break 
     down. Included are:
       1. A charm group who are between jobs.
       2. People who refuse to buy insurance because they feel 
     they don't need it, estimated as high as 8.5 million of the 
     38 million uninsured.
       3. Those who work but are too poor to pay insurance 
     premiums, even though their Medicare and Medicaid payroll tax 
     deductions pay for health coverage for retired people and 
     nonworking poor.
       None of these 38 million people is without emergency care. 
     Any person showing up at a hospital emergency room is treated 
     irrespective of ability to pay. We are about to radically 
     redesign 14% of the gross national product. Everything we 
     know about large systems suggests that we proceed very 
     carefully. Instead, the president is horse trading with 
     reluctant senators and representatives, promising pork for 
     their districts and states if they will vote in a national 
     health scheme that Americans are increasingly dubious 
     about.


                          canadians must wait

       A doctor friend just back from Toronto tells of months of 
     waiting by Canadians for free surgery because of insufficient 
     government funds. There's a quota, and when those dollars are 
     exhausted the list of waiting patients is carried over to the 
     next year. He saw seven of 12 operating rooms empty in a 
     major hospital despite the clamor for operations. An 
     estimated 40% of Canadians in severe pain must wait more than 
     a year for surgery, according to Fraser Institute, a public 
     policy group in Vancouver. It may take a half year to see a 
     neurologist and equally as long to obtain neurosurgery after 
     it is prescribed, says the institute.
       The London Times recently carried this headline about 
     England's National Health Service: Indigestion Patient Gets 
     Date to See Doctor: April, '96.
       American hospitals have seen the future, and it is cost 
     containment. They are diligently wringing out expenses. 
     President Clinton has done the nation a service to focus on 
     health care. But the rush to provide lifetime, irrevocable 
     benefits for which there is not sufficient money is unwise 
     advocacy. Bankruptcy or government health rationing loom.
       The 6.2% taken from your paycheck for Social Security stops 
     after you earn $60,600 in a year. For Medicare, the payroll 
     tax is 1.45%, and you pay the tax on every dollar earned. 
     Your employer pays a like amount of 6.2% for Social Security 
     and 1.45% for Medicare. Even so, the hospital trust fund will 
     be exhausted as early as 1998 and no later than 2000.
       Medicare's actuaries say payroll taxes (employee + employer 
     = 2.9%) will have to rise to 4.3% of payroll by 2000 and to 
     10% by 2035 to pay estimated costs.


                            move cautiously

       Scary? There's worse news. Today, four workers support each 
     retiree. By 2050, when today's 10-year-olds retire, only two 
     workers will be available to pay the Social Security and 
     medical costs of each retiree.
       Move cautiously. Make change gradually and see if it works. 
     Pull back from the rush-to-adjournment stampede for a health 
     bill. We could attempt to fix it for 15% while butchering it 
     for the 85% now covered. Hippocrates was right: First, do no 
     harm.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to table my amendment. I do hope 
every Senator will join me in voting to table my amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


       Vote On The Motion To Table Amendment No. 2466

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the amendment No. 2466.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced, yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 267 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2466) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ROBB. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the 
underlying committee amendment on page 63, line 5 of the bill.
  The amendment was agreed to.

                          ____________________